Originally Posted by bigbird67

Maybe some 10 year olds would struggle with the concept of right and wrong, so would some 12 year olds.
We have Gillick competency applied to children in reference to understanding medical treatment etc, why can the same kind of system not be applied to child offenders? A board of child psychologists, play specialists and specially trained coppers could decide on a case by case basis wether or not a child was capable of comprehension of right and wrong.
My 10 year old understands the concept, his little mate who is autistic might not have the same level of understanding despite only being 8 weeks younger.

Quite like that idea. It could be pretty much given to all up to the age of, say, 18. After that only to recognised sufferers of various mental conditions and disorders.

As for the court, they weren't to scared to abduct a toddler, beat and punch him, stuff batteries in to him, beat him with a iron bar or rub paint in his eyes or leave him dying on the train tracks.

So I couldn't give a fcuk if they were scared or not at any point during procedings. They had a defence council, their parents and, no doubt, numourous othets sympathisers to support them.

Apparently one went nuts when they told him his picture and name had been released (it makes me smile to think of how low he must have been at that point). 9mm in the back of the skull is all they neede, that is pretty similar to what a dangerous dog would have got for a similar event.

If you put the age of criminal responsibility above the typical age of puberty (which is falling), I foresee some very nasty incidents; both an increase in sex "offences", and also a nastier turn in urban gang warfare.

These two pieces of garbage are not human in my book. How can they be?...they must have been extremely deranged and dangerous to commit such an act at this age.I think history has proven that some people cannot be cured eg paedophiles, perverts.
As for the parents, who were obviously terrible people, why were they allowed to keep their other children? Even Thompsons mother had another child afther the conviction of Robert.

If they had not been caught, I dread to think what else they would have done. Would they have killed again?..I think so. There was evidence of sexual abuse during the murder, but this was watered down to save further suffering of James' family.
And what is Jon Venables alleged to have done?...yes, something in connection to sexual images. Just proves that some people cannot be rehabilitated, no matter how long they serve.

Originally Posted by loggielad

As for the parents, who were obviously terrible people, why were they allowed to keep their other children? Even Thompsons mother had another child afther the conviction of Robert.

That is quite strange, the ss normally would move in quick, sharp to snatch the children, even from the delivery room. They have done it before for much less than this, whilst at the same time abandoning children in worse positions to their fate.

There is now, apparently, a healthy ex-pat contingent in Spain hiding from the ss baby snatchers and their obscure childrens courts.

Probably some hippy hand-wringer felt so bad for banging up the two sh1tbags that they decided to leave the family together for 'emotional reasons' or some such twaddle.

She is a classic example of the Neues Arbiets Placeperson…

Chosen for her credentials rather than experience…

Seriously, a 'Childrens Commissioner' who's never had children? How very right on.

Originally Posted by Temple

I think the point she was making was blindingly obvious whether you agree with it or not; she thinks that the age of criminal responsibility is too low and should be raised to twelve because ten year olds are not mature enough to be trated as adults and cannot be held responsible for their actions in exactly the same way as adults.

I don't agree. I think that there should be no age barrier to criminal responsibility. However, age could be a potential mitigating circumstance rather than an excuse. But whatever the way it works, the lawyers will get rich on it.

For me it perhaps not so much about at what age a person magically becomes wholly responsible for their actions which no matter what you set in statute will change from individual to individual. What is much more important is how you deal with the case. Many of these young criminals are mentaly damaged, and thus need different treatment to those that are bullies, greedy etc etc. Deal with them properly and you may ease them out of a lifetime of crime, but carry on as we do now then most of them will become career criminals, is that what we want?